I doubt Art Bell had 15 million nightly viewers, from my brief google search and said that George Noory had continued to hold strong ratings, one would think if the listening audience went from 15 million nightly listeners down to 4 million, that Noory would have gotten a quick hook that would make Katie Couric look good.

But while we are on this debate lets go a step forward to the print media. As we saw, Barr had good writes up in the USA Today, The Washington Post (front page I believe), and the New York Times. Here are the daily circulation numbers from those papers as found at wikipedia:

USA Today: 2.3 million daily circulation
NY Times: 1 million + “”
Washington Post:673,180 “”

So just from those three publications covering his announcement (not counting his exploratory announcement), he received coverage that extended to over 4 million people. And that’s just a brief outline of the three major publications that came to mind, the LA Times, Boston Globe, and NY Post also covered his announcement and one would think that would add another 1.5 to 2 million people. Once again you are seeing media coverage that no other Libertarian presidential candidate has been able to offer, ever. You make a good point about the quality of his coverage, but as I mentioned in my initial post on this topic, I am not debating the quality of the coverage rather the quantity.

Humility and short-selling your own potential are two very different things, and selling oneself short is no virtue.

Thanks for finding better figures than I did (the Coast-to-Coast numbers I had were from back when Art Bell was the host of the show).

Still, 4.5 million is a pretty big audience—and it was a one-hour interview, not a passing mention in Limbaugh’s monologue.

I then asked, “Why would the better scenario be .5% of the vote for a radical Libertarian presidential candidate who gets on television only 10 or 20 times?”

I’d still sincerely like to hear your answer. To me, the difference would be negligible. Of course, Zogby has Barr polling at 3%, not 1.5%, which is a difference of over a million votes.

I had similar experiences with Mike in NC. Just being around him was enough to make you tired – except that it also energized like nothing else.

After he’d leave, though, it was collapse-city for the locals who tried to keep up with him. But not for him!

A. Coast to Coast is listened to an estimated 4.5 people a night (source: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70218)

B. Bob Barr has been mentioned on Rush Limbaugh a couple times who has an audience of 12 million listeners daily (source:http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/12/172826.shtml)

You really don’t have an argument here, Tommy.. And to make further problem of your comparison, Coast to Coast was probably Badnarik’s highest profile media coverage, and I can triple that in one mention of Bob Barr on Rush Limbaugh. Keep in mind, we haven’t included Beck, Hannity; both of whom have huge listening audiences – and print media (NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Boston Globe, et al). All these sources have talked about, or interviewed Bob Barr on multiple occasions in relation to his exploratory committee and official announcement.

Your turn. Might want to do a little better than Coast to Coast though.

lol!..we could get this shit-spew from the stinking, blow-dried phony, republicrat willard milton romney!..(who btw, might accept the nomination if enough of you goddamned fool republican poachers/phony lp’ers kissed his sphincter..heck, who knows, you goddamned fools might finish second in utah!) ;o)

...btw, a little hint for some of you money dummies:..if/when you learn a little about money issuance/money creation/the money system/etc. you won’t spend much time wondering as would a goddamned fool ‘why the LP can’t get any decent media (‘corp$oration’) coverage!’

(if the fucking numbskull barr gets the nomination i’ll be praying for a complete media corp$oration blackout of the LP!) ;o)

FLASH****NEW FEATURE****MONEY TIDBITS FROM CLARK:

*****...did you republicrats know that bank buildings used to be designed such that the bank president’s office was prominently situated so that everyone passing by could see what this pillar of the community was doing!..

...but alas, nowadays the bank president’s office is buried deep within the building and not a goddamned one of you republicrat money dummies has half a clue what he’s up to!....****** (this money tidbit brought to you by CLARK)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hickory.html

William M. Gouge: A Short History of Paper Money and Banking in the United States (Philadelphia, 1833)

“...If a man is unjust or an extortioner, society is, sooner or later, relieved from the burden by his death. But corporations never die. What is worst of all (if worse than what has already been stated be possible) is that want of moral feeling and responsibility which characterizes corporations. A celebrated English writer expressed the truth, with some roughness, but with great force, when he declared that “corporations have neither bodies to be kicked , nor souls to be damned.”

All these objections apply to our American banks. They are protected, in most of the states, by directed inhibitions on individuals engaging in the same business. They are exempted from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. If a poor man cannot pay his debts, his bed is, in some of the states, taken from under him. If that will not satisfy his creditors, his body is imprisoned. The shareholders in a bank are entitled to all the gain they can make by banking operations; but if the undertaking chances to be unsuccessful, the loss falls on those who have trusted them. They are responsible only for the amount of stock they may have subscribed.

For the old standard of value, they substitute the new standard of bank credit. Would government be willing to trust to corporations the fixing of our standards and measures of length, weight, and capacity? Or are our standards and measures of value of less importance than our standards and measures of other things?

...What has always been considered one of the most important prerogatives of government has been surrendered to the banks…..

If the superior credit the banks enjoy grew out of the natural order of things, it would not be a subject of complaint. But the banks owe their credit to their charters – to special acts of legislation in their favor, and to their notes being made receivable in payment of dues to government. The kind of credit which is created for them by law, being equalpollent with cash in the market, enables them to transfer an equal amount of substantial wealth from the productive classes to themselves, giving the productive classes only representatives of credit or evidences of debt in return for the substantial wealth which they part with. . .”

(hint: it appears it’s been going on a looooong time, you chicken-chokin’ republican money retards..and it appears at the root of your/our woe$..)

So what you’re saying is that ALL of Barr’s announcement-day media coverage MAY have been seen or heard by as many people as listened to Badnarik in ONE radio appearance (Coast to Coast AM, 15 million listeners) on ONE day of his post-nomination campaign, right?

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/02/cable-news-8pm-hour-ratings-for-may-1-2008/3600

I mean.. the lowest estimate would probably be that 60,000 people saw Bob Barr’s interview on just one of those channels.. That’s bottom of the barrel.. A conservative estimate would be between 200,000-400,000 viewers. I wonder how many local radio shows Badnarik would have to call to just cover 60,000 listeners.. My guess would be a huge amount.. Which I know he did..

Jake Featherston

* Location: San Jose : Northern California

About Me

“Jake Featherston” is the pen name of Kevin Riley O’Keeffe, an angry White man (born in 1970), who hails originally from Selma, Alabama, but now resides in San Jose, Northern California. His political views are a strange mix of the left and the right (albeit with a greater emphasis on the latter). He is a supporter and/or admirer of Ron Paul, Patrick J. Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Justin Raimondo, Bill Kauffman, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, and the late Dr. Samuel Francis. If anything he writes offends you, you are encouraged to either Reply to it, or to ignore it.

Is your name an intentionally chosen pseudonym or just an unfortunate coincidence?

FYI, no, I did not write “the story is about more media coverage than I’ve ever seen a Libertarian candidate receive.” That was Steve Gordon.

I also didn’t say that we “can’t know for sure.” I said that I don’t have access to the documentation to prove the issue one way or another—but that if I thought we could get that documentation, I’d happily bet you $100 that you’re wrong. Anyone who knows me knows that I don’t take bets of that sort lightly. If I wasn’t “sure,” I wouldn’t even say it—because someone might pop up with the documentation to settle the question.

As far as Ruwart v. Barr on child porn is concerned, Ruwart’s record is much more defensible than Barr’s. Ruwart has merely asserted that laws against child porn do more harm than good. Barr has asserted—much more recently and much more publicly, unless you think that Ruwart’s book is more widely read than Barr’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution column—that the government of Georgia is legally obligated to distribute child pornography. Do you think that Barr’s opponents won’t pull THAT one out of the vault if he gains any traction at all?

You start by saying we can’t know for sure, then you turn around and say it’s bullshit hype, you can’t have it both ways, Tommy. You did a pretty fine job in making my case for me when you said,

“The story is about more media coverage than I’ve ever seen a Libertarian candidate receive.”

I mean, that is a quote from YOUR article on the front page of this website, is it not?

I am fully aware of how many local radio shows that Badnarik did but lets not confuse that with the coverage that Barr has gotten from every major newspaper and every major cable television station in this country since he started his exploratory committee. Bob Barr is getting mentioned on the most listened to radio shows daily (Hannity, Rush, Beck). I don’t need to look at some media log to know that those outlets can cover a lot more people in a very short time compared to Badnarik doing local radio interviews.

Mary Ruwart is little no in the mainstream. But once again, it doesn’t take a media genius to understand which aspect they have and will focus on if she was to defeat Bob Barr at the convention. Lets be honest, Barr losing would be big news, Barr losing a defender of child pornography would be even bigger news. And don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to twists Ruwarts views, but you know the media will be all over it.

You write, in response to David Nolan:

“The Libertarian Party nominee hasn’t received 0.5% of the vote sine Harry Brown in 1996. The favorite behind Bob Barr is Mary Ruwart, who among the mainstream is known for her views on child pornography; I would bet my testicles that she doesn’t match Michael Badnarik’s 0.34%.”

Mary Ruwart isn’t known among the mainstream for her views on child pornography. She’s not known among the mainstream at all. Neither was Michael Badnarik. Neither was Harry Browne. Neither was Andre Marrou. Neither was Ron Paul in 1988. Neither was David Bergland. Neither was Ed Clark. Neither was Roger McBride. Neither was John Hospers.

A few of those candidates managed to get—at least temporarily and barely—known in the mainstream through their post-nomination campaigns.

Barr’s name is recognized in the mainstream … but to the extent that that recognition is tied to any knowledge of who he is, the recognition is likely not largely positive.

The question, really, is whether or not Barr’s image is so negative that, all other things being equal, it might be preferable to run an unknown instead of running him. And I don’t think all other things are equal.

“The closest thing we have to poll numbers for Libertarians are from Zogby (I believe- someone correct me its been posted here) in which he had Barr polling at 3-4%. And please don’t bring up George Phillies’ bullshit poll that he paid for to try to discredit the Zogby poll.”

Phillies commissioned what appeared to be a perfectly legitimate poll—and he did so months ago, before Barr even started rattling his presidential sabre.

“You can argue how much press Bob Barr will receive and the quality of it, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that Bob Barr has gotten more media in just his announcement of an exploration committee, and his official announcement into the race then Michael Badnarik received in his entire campaign.”

Yes, that’s pretty safe to say—not because it’s true, but because it’s easy to get away with. I don’t have a Badnarik 2004 media log or a Barr 2008 media log to make the comparison with. But if I thought we could get those two to settle the question, I wouldn’t think twice about betting you $100 that you’re way wrong.

On one of Badnarik’s campaign swings through Missouri, he did 11 radio interviews, three television interviews and two newspaper interviews in one day. When I gave him a ride from Carbondale, IL back to St. Louis, he did one radio interview before getting in the car, another entire national talk radio show in the car, and dashed for his hotel room when I dropped him off to take the call for a third hour-long radio pump.

Did Barr get a lot of media for his exploratory? Yep. Did Barr get a lot of media for his announcement? Yep. Will Barr get a lot more media if he’s nominated than Badnarik did? Almost certainly. But these “in one day than in the whole campaign” claims are bullshit hype.

Until he does that, he is no champion of freedom, because he doesn’t get the First Amendment.

Until he gets that, he doesn’t get my delegate vote, press exposure be damned.